Akum

Look, I agree with every single word of this. But to me our biggest problem in every game is that we don't play as a team. Because we are not coached to play as a team. We are coached for "player development". Saints today did so much holding and blocking off the ball, with varying degrees of legality. But they blocked for each other, covered for each other, backed each other up, played as a team. Other sides have worked out how to play them. FGS, it was even in the little paper yesterday. We decided we knew better, and wouldn't do all those things that other sides have done to beat them. If we get a coach in 2012 who gets us to play as a team, whether it's Bailey or somebody else, this sort of crap will happen much less often.

I don't think they lack heart. They just look like they don't know what to do. They battle so hard to get to a critical point in the game - this week, they level the scores halfway through the third quarter after being behind all day - and then ... what the hell do we do now? Their "player development" coaching doesn't equip them for what needs to come next.

Davey's problem is that his tank is the size of a Vespa. This makes him so easy to tag, because he's not capable of burning them off. He relies on bursts of effort, and it's just so easy to hold him off the pack all game. He doesn't have the physical attributes to beat a tag, so he's going to rely on his teammates to help him. But nobody helps him because we don't play as a team - it's all about "player development".

Two poor first half efforts from Newton were taken straight up the other end for goals; the second one he missed from 10m. Kosi hasn't cost them a goal yet. Though I agree what you say about effort compared to the others, though I thought MacDonald's been OK.

A better performance, but still not playing much as a team. We're being made to play the way the Saints want to.

Kosi & Newton cancel each other out. It's 20 vs 20.

Totally agree with this as a principle. However it will mean some Dees "regulars" making way to allow the youngsters those 5-10 games x 5, and I can't see the selectors doing that. More's the pity.

You seriously equate the win against a 4-0 Brisbane last year with the win against GC this year? Maybe Adelaide this year equates to Brisbane last year, but last year we did it again against Sydney, and it was when both those sides were going through their best times of the season. And I agree that the Collingwood performances last year have been over-valued, but by the same token it's difficult to equate a draw and a close loss against the eventual premier with a draw against a competent but hardly outstanding team like 2011 Sydney. And I don't know about you, but to me it's really poor that we've learned absolutely nothing from two of our worst performances last year against NM & WC - lI'd like to think that some day we won't be North's [censored] any more. But the biggest difference is that in several games you have "conceded X goals in a quarter after dominating" or "goalless quarter" written off as a bad performance, rather than a good performance with a bad period in it. Similarly with a few where we lost but put up a good fight - WB, Freo over there, Hawthorn at end of year. Together this type of appraisal adds up to 7 or 8 games in 2010 where I'd say "pretty good", you'd say "pretty bad". And yeah, OK, if you see all those games as "bad games", then we were bad last year and we're no worse so far this year. If you see them as "good games", then we need to improve quite a bit this year to get up to last year's standard. I'm happy for others to sort out what's revisionism.

So Artie, is this the level of team performance that you expected from us this year? And we should still stick with Dean for another couple of years, even if our performance doesn't improve over the rest of the season? Because for me, we've got to improve over what we've seen so far. I certainly didn't expect finals, but I didn't expect them to be this bad either.

We'd waste Tappy by making him play a defensive role. We need him to keep pumping the ball into the forward 50, so he needs to be on their #6 forward - McQualter or whoever.

Personally, I'd be happy with 3 good games (preferably in a row) against any good sides who put real pressure on us in the way that Hawks & West Coast & North did. I don't care what time of the year it is, it could be Rounds 22 to 24 for all I care. All I want is for us to work out how to not go under as soon as the other side puts real pressure on us.

There's nothing wrong with asking the question. But then you've got to weigh up the evidence before having a crack. If Scully's injury has been mismanaged in any way, he will almost certainly leave and cite this as the reason, so the stakes are huge. But there's nothing whatsoever to suggest even the slightest mismanagement, and if there was "a post-op balls-up" then he would not have been able to play out last year without any apparent trouble.

And how many goals did Edwards kick on him in the 2nd quarter because he couldn't walk, let alone run? It would be bad enough if it was a medical decision. But if it was a decision made by the coaches, it's worse.

Is it time for Davey or Green as sub? Or are they immune because they're part of the "leadership group"? And if there's talk about Evans being upgraded, it can only be because he's going to be selected this week. They don't have to decide which rookie to upgrade for LTI until they're selected. I'd like to see Blease come in, his foot-speed (like Evans') could be an important weapon against the Aints. I have a feeling he could be one of those who does better at a higher grade.

Trouble is, last year we were mostly pretty good, but awful in patches - usually against teams that did their homework against us. This year we're mostly pretty awful, but good in patches. That's the difference.

Good point. In similar situations in the past, leadership was given to players in their early 20s like David Dench & Wayne Carey (there must have been others, these are just the only ones I can think of off the top of my head), over and above older teammates who weren't as good. And at the moment, it's the older group who need to shoulder the load but who aren't.

So you think it's because he still lacks the ticker? THen why do you think he's hard at it at some times and not at others? Or could it be that our forward line is so disorganised and badly structured that in some situations he can't be sure that he isn't going to get in someone's way? In other words, hesitancy rather than cowardice. Because I think you've got it wrong. That might have been true at one stage, but these days he's far more often in there getting it out than he is hanging on the outside relying on others to get it out to him.

The point is: will his record against Vic teams improve, now that we've stopped tanking (we have stopped tanking, haven't we?)

My problem with Bailey after a game like yesterday is that I can't see how he makes any impact whatsoever on the outcome, especially in a game where we're put under pressure. His effect on team performance seems to be completely passive - if the players can't lift themselves on the field, we're stuffed. I want to see a single game in which he does have an impact before we extend his contract. By contrast, the impact that Hardwick has had, that Brad Scott has had, that Hird/Thompson have had, is all too clear for everyone to see. I could add, in past years, the impact of Lyon, of Eade, of Clarkson. Blame the players all you like; Bailey, so far, is no-impact. I would love for him to show us all that he has an impact on the team's performance. It's up to him. If he's up to it, he'll do it. If not, he won't; he'll just get better ecuses, with the help of a number of D'landers. Another point that we need to face squarely: how much of our team improvement comes down to the improvement of a single individual: Mark Jamar. How would we look if Russian hadn't gone from "doughnut" to AA in one season? Well, Dean has a golden opportunity to show us that he is such a good coach that he can overcome the loss of our central player. Or he won't. It's up to him, plain & simple. I'm getting sick of it being left up to the players to justify him as coach. I hope he can do it; if we can go forward without having to replace him as coach, it would be much better for us. He's got the rest of the season to do it. But without a big improvement in team performance - if this is as good as we can do this year whenever we're put under pressure - he'll be relying purely on sympathy to keep his job into 2012.

What I can't understand is that he earned his captaincy by being so good as a key forward last year, but this year the brains trust came up with the brilliant idea that the best position for the team's captain is wing or flank, while we play thru the corridor. He looks much more at home as a forward target, he just has the kicking 'yips' at the moment.

I thought Bail was on Harvey, and really towelled him up until injured, after which Harvey broke loose. Bail definitely has his measure. And I thought they had Garland on Edwards most of the time in 2nd qtr, which would explain why Edwards was on his own so much because Garland could hardly walk let alone run.

Maybe he didn't thank the umpires with sufficient conviction after the game.

Can we win only if we have our best 22 (or close to it) on the ground?? If that's the sort of team we are, if we're all OK with that, then what's the point? I'll put it the other way - this is Bailey's opportunity to demonstrate his coaching ability by snaffling a surprise win when we're undermanned. He needs to come up with something over the next few weeks, not just rely on superhuman efforts by the players. Or do we just lie down and work on polishing up our excuses? Bailey has a golden chance to show everyone whether he adds value as coach on match day ... or whether he doesn't. Let's leave the whinging to Norf. Please.

Yeh you're right, I take it back. But we have to do something about our midfield, I just don't know what. Over the next few weeks we're going to need midfielders who can play to a losing ruck, and Gys is one of the better ones at this. Maybe I expected too much from him because he IS usually so good in close.

I'm not saying Bailey has to go, but to stay he's got to show us something on match day.